HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CMA.No.565 of 2014 Date:08.08.2014 Between:
Goddu Krishna Murthy, S/o Late Chinnodu and four others.
. Appellants And:
Goddu Likitha @ Leena, D/o Srinivasa rao, minor, reptd by its next Friend and guardian mother-Goddu Kalyani @ Kameswari, W/o Srinivasarao . Respondent Counsel for the appellants: Sri T.D.Phani Kumar Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of order, dated 13.03.2014, in I.A.No.469 of 2013 in O.S.No.43 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.
The respondent, a one year old minor, filed the above-mentioned suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule properties through her mother against her father, grandfather and other joint family members.
It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the said properties originally belonged to late Goddu Chinnodu and that on his death, the properties devolved upon her grandfather- defendant No.1, her father-defendant No.2 and other family members.
Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.469 of 2013 for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. The appellants-defendants filed a counter resisting the said application. By the impugned order, the lower Court granted injunction as prayed for.
Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that there is no specific pleading in the plaint as to which among the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and which are the self-acquired properties of appellant No.2-defendant No.2.
A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the suit schedule properties were acquired during the life time of Goddu Chinnodu; that they devolved upon all the joint family members; and that with the joint family nucleus, they have developed the said properties. Whether this plea is correct or not needs to be adjudicated in the suit. There appear to be serious matrimonial disputes between the mother of the plaintiff on one side and appellant No.2- defendnat No.2 on the other.
In these circumstances, any alienation of the suit schedule properties pending the suit would lead to unavoidable complications, such as creation of third party interests. Therefore, the lower Court has justifiably granted injunction. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, CMAMP.No.804 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.
08th August, 2014 DR
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY